Have you ever watched the comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? Someone drops a coke bottle from a plane into a group of native people in Africa who have never seen such a bottle. The whole movie centres around a particular interpretation of what they thought the coke bottle really was. The movie title refers to their belief that Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe godsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ had sent it. However, it caused so many squabbles about who should use it that they decided that it was an evil thing that must be returned to the gods by dropping it over Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe edge of the world.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

The bushmen had a totally different way of looking at this bottle from that of the people who dropped it. Why did they get it so wrong? The following exercise will help us understand what was happening.

Consider the following Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Observe it very closely.

Now attempt to answer this question about the fact. What do you think this most likely was originally? What do you think is most likely missing?

Let me help you by offering you some options. See if one of these is one of the possibilities you thought of.

Most people say it was a circle originally, and thus choose option E. However, the correct answer is that nothing is missing, because I drew the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (first illustration pictured above) just as you see it!

This simple exercise teaches us a very important lesson about evidence and interpretation. The point is that Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ by themselves are essentially meaninglessÃ¢â‚¬â€they all need to be interpreted within a particular philosophical framework.

LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s consider our Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ above. I asked a question: Ã¢â‚¬ËœWhat is missing?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ By doing this I gave people a particular presupposition to use when looking at this fact. If someone accepts this presupposition that something is missing, then they look at the fact believing they have to come up with a solution as to what is missing. Thus, the person is now looking at the fact in a particular wayÃ¢â‚¬â€with a specific belief about the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ that they have accepted. When people say it was a circle, they have actually interpreted the fact in a particular way, consistent with their way of thinking that is based on the presupposition stating something is missing.

Now the circle interpretation is totally consistent with the personÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s way of thinking and is totally consistent with their presuppositionÃ¢â‚¬â€itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just the interpretation is totally wrong because they started with the wrong presupposition.

What those listening to me should have done was to question my question! In other words, instead of accepting this presupposition without question, they should have asked how I knew something was missingÃ¢â‚¬â€thus questioning my question! In doing so, a person may then discover that there could be a totally different way of looking at this same Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

The problem is that most people have not been trained to even understand that every Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ has been interpreted by a presupposition that in essence asks a questionÃ¢â‚¬â€let alone whether the right question was asked!

For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained: What method was used? What assumptions were accepted to develop this method?

These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid or not and determine whether the rockÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proved the rock is billions of years old, and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

For example, consider the research from the creationist RATE group concerning the age of zircon crystals in granite (see Radiometric dating breakthroughs). Using one set of assumptions, these crystals could be interpreted to be around 1.5 billion years old, based on the amount of lead produced from the decay of uranium (which also produces helium). However, if one questions these assumptions, one is motivated to test them. Measurements of the rate at which helium is able to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœleak outÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ of these crystals indicate that if they were much older than about 6,000 years, they would have nowhere near the amount of helium still left in them. Hence the originally applied assumption of a constant decay rate is flawed; one must assume, instead, that there has been acceleration of the decay rate in the past. Using this revised assumption, the same uranium-lead data can now be interpreted to also give an age of less than 6,000 years.

The bushmen in the movie had the wrong presupposition when trying to interpret the coke bottle. Because they asked the wrong question, they came up with the wrong answer and thought it was something that was evil and must be disposed of.

All of this should be a lesson for us to take note of the situation when we read the newspaperÃ¢â‚¬â€we are reading someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interpretation of the facts of world historyÃ¢â‚¬â€there very well could be a different way of looking at the same Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfacts.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ One can see this in practice on US television when comparing a news network thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s currently considered fairly liberal (CNN) with one that is more conservative (FOX)Ã¢â‚¬â€one can often see the same Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ interpreted differently!

I had the opportunity to explain all of this to a student at a Christian high school who was frustrated with one of her instructors who claimed to believe the Bible was the Word of God.

She said: Ã¢â‚¬ËœI wanted to write a paper on Job 40, stating my belief that the creature called Ã¢â‚¬Å“behemothÃ¢â‚¬Â mentioned in this passage was a dinosaur living at the time of Job. However, my professor told me that unless I could show clearly documented evidence that dinosaur and human fossils were found together in the same rock layersÃ¢â‚¬â€and he said no one has ever found thisÃ¢â‚¬â€then, I could not write on dinosaurs and humans living together. He said that scientists had proved dinosaurs lived millions of years before man. What can I say to my professor?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

My response was to suggest this student confront her professor with two issues:

If the Bible really is the Word of God, who knows everything, and is the true record of history (which it is), then all of our thinking must start with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created everything in six literal days. On Day Six, God made land animals (which must have included dinosaurs, as they were land animals) and Adam and Eve.

Therefore, on the basis of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s authority, we should be prepared to say that dinosaurs and humans lived together, regardless of what the secular world claims.

Now, since GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word in Genesis is true history, then any evidence, properly interpreted on this basis, will be consistent with observational science. Whereas if the evidence is interpreted on the basis of the professorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, it should ultimately conflict with observational science and thus show a problem with the interpretation.

I told this student to use the coelacanth fish (pictured right) to explain a very important point to her teacher. For a long time, this fish was believed to have evolved about 340 million years ago and become extinct about 70 million years agoÃ¢â‚¬â€about the same final extinction Ã¢â‚¬ËœdateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ claimed for the dinosaurs. This was because fossils of coelacanth fish are found in rocks the same evolutionary age as the dinosaurs, but not rocks Ã¢â‚¬ËœdatedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ younger. So coelacanths were believed to have died out long before man came on the scene, and thus never lived at the same time as people. However, in 1938, scientists found live coelacanths were being caught off the coast of Madagascar. Decades later, researchers found that Indonesian fisherman had also been selling coelacanths in their fish markets for years.

Now hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the point. No fossils of coelacanths have ever been found in the same layers as human fossils, but they have been found in the same layers as dinosaur fossilsÃ¢â‚¬â€yet we know coelacanths and humans do live together, because they do so in the present world.

In other words, just because we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find fossils of certain creatures (or plants) together with humans in the fossil record, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean they didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t live together.

Starting with the Bible, and therefore the presupposition that man and dinosaur did live together, we can properly interpret such Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (or in this case, really the absence of a factÃ¢â‚¬â€thus an argument from silence). But, as my coelacanth example shows, the absence of human fossils in Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdinosaur rockÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ does not support the presupposition that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man.

And itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not just the coelacanthÃ¢â‚¬â€there are numerous (in fact hundreds) of examples of plants and animals living today that are represented in the fossil record as being supposedly millions of years old, and yet they are not found fossilized in the same layer as human fossils. Consider the Wollemi pine tree found in 1994 in the Blue Mountains in AustraliaÃ¢â‚¬â€it was thought to have become extinct with the dinosaurs, but was then found living alongside people in this present world! Another example is the tadpole shrimp, said to have lived from 250 to 65 million years ago, yet identical shrimps have been found living today.

The reason so many Christian professors (and Christian leaders in general) have rejected the literal creation position is that they have blindly accepted the interpretation of evidence from the secular world, based on manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fallible presuppositions about history. So they have tried to reinterpret the Bible accordingly.

If only they would start with the presupposition that GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word is true. They would find that they could then correctly interpret the evidence of the present, and also show overwhelmingly that observational science over and over again confirms such interpretations. For example, fossil red blood cells and traces of hemoglobin have been found in T. rex bones, although they should have long decomposed if they were millions of years old. Yet the reaction of the evolutionary researchers was a perfect illustration of how evolutionary bias can result in trying to explain away hard facts to fit the preconceived framework of millions of years:

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe it. I said to the lab technician: Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?

Whenever you hear a news report that scientists have found another Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmissing linkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ or discovered a fossil Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmillions of years oldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â€try to think about the right questions that need to be asked to question the questions these scientists asked to get their interpretations!

And donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t forget, as Christians, we need to always build our thinking on the Word of the One who has the answers to all of the questions that could ever be askedÃ¢â‚¬â€the infinite Creator God. He has revealed the true history of the universe in His Word to enable us to develop the right way of thinking about the present and thus determine the correct interpretations of the evidence of the present. We should follow Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10 that teach that fear of the Lord is the beginning of true wisdom and knowledge.

Now attempt to answer this question about the fact. What do you think this most likely was originally? What do you think is most likely missing?

[/quote]

The question is misleading; it asks what was this originally, implying something is different.

[/quote]
I had the opportunity to explain all of this to a student at a Christian high school who was frustrated with one of her instructors who claimed to believe the Bible was the Word of God.

She said: Ã¢â‚¬ËœI wanted to write a paper on Job 40, stating my belief that the creature called Ã¢â‚¬Å“behemothÃ¢â‚¬Â mentioned in this passage was a dinosaur living at the time of Job. However, my professor told me that unless I could show clearly documented evidence that dinosaur and human fossils were found together in the same rock layersÃ¢â‚¬â€and he said no one has ever found thisÃ¢â‚¬â€then, I could not write on dinosaurs and humans living together. He said that scientists had proved dinosaurs lived millions of years before man. What can I say to my professor?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

My response was to suggest this student confront her professor with two issues:

If the Bible really is the Word of God, who knows everything, and is the true record of history (which it is), then all of our thinking must start with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word.

Have you ever watched the comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? Someone drops a coke bottle from a plane into a group of native people in Africa who have never seen such a bottle. The whole movie centres around a particular interpretation of what they thought the coke bottle really was. The movie title refers to their belief that Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe godsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ had sent it. However, it caused so many squabbles about who should use it that they decided that it was an evil thing that must be returned to the gods by dropping it over Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe edge of the world.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

The bushmen had a totally different way of looking at this bottle from that of the people who dropped it. Why did they get it so wrong? The following exercise will help us understand what was happening.

An excellent movie. However what did they actually get wrong? the fact that it caused society problems (correct) or the factual origin of the coke bottle (wrong).

Consider the following Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Observe it very closely. <Snip visual experiment> Most people say it was a circle originally, and thus choose option E. However, the correct answer is that nothing is missing, because I drew the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (first illustration pictured above) just as you see it!

This simple exercise teaches us a very important lesson about evidence and interpretation. The point is that Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ by themselves are essentially meaninglessÃ¢â‚¬â€they all need to be interpreted within a particular philosophical framework.

LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s consider our Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ above. I asked a question: Ã¢â‚¬ËœWhat is missing?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ By doing this I gave people a particular presupposition to use when looking at this fact. If someone accepts this presupposition that something is missing, then they look at the fact believing they have to come up with a solution as to what is missing. Thus, the person is now looking at the fact in a particular wayÃ¢â‚¬â€with a specific belief about the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ that they have accepted. When people say it was a circle, they have actually interpreted the fact in a particular way, consistent with their way of thinking that is based on the presupposition stating something is missing.

Good stuff so far, one should be on guard against bias in thinking. This is applicable to all who profess to perform research and experimentation and no one is exempt.

What those listening to me should have done was to question my question! In other words, instead of accepting this presupposition without question, they should have asked how I knew something was missingÃ¢â‚¬â€thus questioning my question! In doing so, a person may then discover that there could be a totally different way of looking at this same Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

The problem is that most people have not been trained to even understand that every Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ has been interpreted by a presupposition that in essence asks a questionÃ¢â‚¬â€let alone whether the right question was asked!

For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained: What method was used? What assumptions were accepted to develop this method?

These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid or not and determine whether the rockÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proved the rock is billions of years old, and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

For example, consider the research from the creationist RATE group concerning the age of zircon crystals in granite (see Radiometric dating breakthroughs). Using one set of assumptions, these crystals could be interpreted to be around 1.5 billion years old, based on the amount of lead produced from the decay of uranium (which also produces helium). However, if one questions these assumptions, one is motivated to test them. Measurements of the rate at which helium is able to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœleak outÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ of these crystals indicate that if they were much older than about 6,000 years, they would have nowhere near the amount of helium still left in them. Hence the originally applied assumption of a constant decay rate is flawed; one must assume, instead, that there has been acceleration of the decay rate in the past. Using this revised assumption, the same uranium-lead data can now be interpreted to also give an age of less than 6,000 years.

I dispute the results on the RATE group on the evidence that the AiG has a statement of faith regarding evidence.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Sections from the answersingenesis.org article, numbered for convenience:

1) ---------------------For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained: What method was used? What assumptions were accepted to develop this method?

These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid or not and determine whether the rockÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proved the rock is billions of years old, and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

2) ---------------------------If the Bible really is the Word of God, who knows everything, and is the true record of history (which it is), then all of our thinking must start with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created everything in six literal days. On Day Six, God made land animals (which must have included dinosaurs, as they were land animals) and Adam and Eve.

Therefore, on the basis of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s authority, we should be prepared to say that dinosaurs and humans lived together, regardless of what the secular world claims.

Now, since GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word in Genesis is true history, then any evidence, properly interpreted on this basis, will be consistent with observational science. Whereas if the evidence is interpreted on the basis of the professorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, it should ultimately conflict with observational science and thus show a problem with the interpretation.

3) ---------------------------------------------The reason so many Christian professors (and Christian leaders in general) have rejected the literal creation position is that they have blindly accepted the interpretation of evidence from the secular world, based on manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fallible presuppositions about history. So they have tried to reinterpret the Bible accordingly.

If only they would start with the presupposition that GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word is true. They would find that they could then correctly interpret the evidence of the present, and also show overwhelmingly that observational science over and over again confirms such interpretations. For example, fossil red blood cells and traces of hemoglobin have been found in T. rex bones, although they should have long decomposed if they were millions of years old. Yet the reaction of the evolutionary researchers was a perfect illustration of how evolutionary bias can result in trying to explain away hard facts to fit the preconceived framework of millions of years:

4) ---------------------------------Whenever you hear a news report that scientists have found another Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmissing linkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ or discovered a fossil Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmillions of years oldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â€try to think about the right questions that need to be asked to question the questions these scientists asked to get their interpretations!

Now, since GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word in Genesis is true history, then any evidence, properly interpreted on this basis, will be consistent with observational science. Whereas if the evidence is interpreted on the basis of the professorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, it should ultimately conflict with observational science and thus show a problem with the interpretation.

So where is the observational evidence that humans and dinosaurs (non-avian dinosaurs) lived at the same time? You said it yourself, if God's Word in Genesis is true history then the evidence should back it up. Where is the evidence?

told this student to use the coelacanth fish (pictured right) to explain a very important point to her teacher. For a long time, this fish was believed to have evolved about 340 million years ago and become extinct about 70 million years agoÃ¢â‚¬â€about the same final extinction Ã¢â‚¬ËœdateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ claimed for the dinosaurs. This was because fossils of coelacanth fish are found in rocks the same evolutionary age as the dinosaurs, but not rocks Ã¢â‚¬ËœdatedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ younger. So coelacanths were believed to have died out long before man came on the scene, and thus never lived at the same time as people. However, in 1938, scientists found live coelacanths were being caught off the coast of Madagascar. Decades later, researchers found that Indonesian fisherman had also been selling coelacanths in their fish markets for years.

Now hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the point. No fossils of coelacanths have ever been found in the same layers as human fossils, but they have been found in the same layers as dinosaur fossilsÃ¢â‚¬â€yet we know coelacanths and humans do live together, because they do so in the present world.

In other words, just because we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find fossils of certain creatures (or plants) together with humans in the fossil record, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean they didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t live together.

Correct, the fossil record is very patchy, and a single fossil can re-write the text books, as your coelacanth example demonstrates, a similar situation has recently arisen with the discover of Homo floresiensis. I should point out that discoveries of this nature are not unexpected and are indeed welcomed.

your most welcome.Replying to the coelacanth question in your first post.

Correct, the fossil record is very patchy, and a single fossil can re-write the text books, as your coelacanth example demonstrates, a similar situation has recently arisen with the discover of Homo floresiensis. I should point out that discoveries of this nature are not unexpected and are indeed welcomed.

I'm just a little curious as to how much new evidence that disproves evolution and points more to creation has to be discovered, before evolutionists have no choice but to renounce evolution.

I believe its already happened, however some are steadfast on their faith.

I am a little curious on how the coelocanth disproves evolution? Is that what you are claiming?

I never said the fish alone disproves it, I think the idea of evolution and the alledged evidences it calls evidence disproves evolution better than anything.

The fish being alive today, just shows how evolutionists determine certain information like dating.The fish was originally dated by evolutionists to be millions of years old, but was found to be living today, they also cliamed it never lived with man, just like the dinosaurs.

But if man lived along with the fish, then this proves to me that the creationist view in dinosaurs walking the Earth with man is valid and supported.

The point is, evolutionists methods in obtaining information such as dating, is sheer guesses, and when disproved, they revise the story and say I can do this, thats how science works.lol

Please note, there are many creationist scientists who do not do that.Science is blessing if used correctly, and not used along side imagination.And dishonesty as in, guessing, then calling it a fact, while it is still unsubstantiated.

If evolution is so scientific, why do evolutionists want so badly to call it a fact, when its still a "theory"?It means as much to them as a religion, because thats what it is.Every man seeks by nature to serve someone or something, evolutionists choose to worship false science instead of God.

I'm just a little curious as to how much new evidence that disproves evolution and points more to creation has to be discovered, before evolutionists have no choice but to renounce evolution.

I believe its already happened, however some are steadfast on their faith.

An out of sequence fossil would be a good start, e.g. Human remains in the Jurassic, mammals in the Devonian, etc. And by out of sequence it means a modern life form in an old geological layer, the reverse situation like the coelacanth, is merely a long lost survivor.

I never said the fish alone disproves it, I think the idea of evolution and the alledged evidences it calls evidence disproves evolution better than anything.

Perhaps you could start another thread with a specific example?

The fish being alive today, just shows how evolutionists determine certain information like dating.

The living species of coelocanth is found nowhere in the fossil record. You must remember that coelocanth is the name of a group of fish, not a single species. It is similar to "cats" being lions, tigers, ocelots, etc. What it shows is a huge problem for creationists. Evolutionists have been saying for years that the fossil record is very incomplete. Creationists, on the other hand, claim that we should see examples of every single transitional and species that ever lived in the fossil record. It looks as if the evolutionists were right. Also, the living species of coelocanth is quite large, around 3 feet long if memory serves. The fossil species of coelocanth were no larger than 15 inches or so. There are also morphological differences, such as the bony girdles found in the lobed fins of the living species.

The fish was originally dated by evolutionists to be millions of years old, but was found to be living today, they also cliamed it never lived with man, just like the dinosaurs.

Read above.

Simply, no fossil remains of coelocanths have been found in strata younger than about 60 million years old. That is still true. The same for dinosaurs. No dinosaurs can be found above the K/T boundary. Evolution does not require that coelocanths or dinosaurs be extinct, it is a conclusion drawn from the fossil record not the theory of evolution.

But if man lived along with the fish, then this proves to me that the creationist view in dinosaurs walking the Earth with man is valid and supported.

It has always been a possibility, but evidence has yet to surface. The only mention of a dinosaur like organism in the Old Testament is described as having external genitalia and a navel, two things that dinosaurs never had.

The point is, evolutionists methods in obtaining information such as dating, is sheer guesses, and when disproved, they revise the story and say I can do this, thats how science works.lol

Start a thread on dating methodologies and I assure you that nothing about these techniques is "guessing". You might as well claim that I am guessing when I call the sky blue.

If evolution is so scientific, why do evolutionists want so badly to call it a fact, when its still a "theory"?

Evolution is both theory and fact. Life has changed over time. That is a fact. How the change was caused is the theory.

It means as much to them as a religion, because thats what it is.Every man seeks by nature to serve someone or something, evolutionists choose to worship false science instead of God.

Again, what about all of the theistic evolutionists. They accept both God and evolution. You are simply wrong.

Perhaps you could start another thread with a specific example?The living species of coelocanth is found nowhere in the fossil record. You must remember that coelocanth is the name of a group of fish, not a single species. It is similar to "cats" being lions, tigers, ocelots, etc. What it shows is a huge problem for creationists. Evolutionists have been saying for years that the fossil record is very incomplete. Creationists, on the other hand, claim that we should see examples of every single transitional and species that ever lived in the fossil record. It looks as if the evolutionists were right. Also, the living species of coelocanth is quite large, around 3 feet long if memory serves. The fossil species of coelocanth were no larger than 15 inches or so. There are also morphological differences, such as the bony girdles found in the lobed fins of the living species. Read above.

Simply, no fossil remains of coelocanths have been found in strata younger than about 60 million years old. That is still true. The same for dinosaurs. No dinosaurs can be found above the K/T boundary. Evolution does not require that coelocanths or dinosaurs be extinct, it is a conclusion drawn from the fossil record not the theory of evolution.It has always been a possibility, but evidence has yet to surface. The only mention of a dinosaur like organism in the Old Testament is described as having external genitalia and a navel, two things that dinosaurs never had.Start a thread on dating methodologies and I assure you that nothing about these techniques is "guessing". You might as well claim that I am guessing when I call the sky blue.Evolution is both theory and fact. Life has changed over time. That is a fact. How the change was caused is the theory.Again, what about all of the theistic evolutionists. They accept both God and evolution. You are simply wrong.

Man is fallible and can accept anything and everything that his fallible mind wants to accept.But the word of God is infallible and has literal statements of what happened as far as origin of life, for a theistic evolutionists to inject ideas of evolution into Gods word that states otherwise happened is rediculous.

Until evidence does surface on those things, leave it called what it will ultimately remain, imagined speculation.the sky is actually not blue, evidence for this has been proven, unlike anything involving evolution.The suns light reflecting off of countless dust particles causes the many different colors of light to spread across the sky, with the color blue being most of the color being spread out, it causes the sky to appear blue.

How has life changed over time? Give me some impiracle evidence of this?We wear different clothes yes, we have more high tech technology due to accumilated knowledge yes, but we aren't any more inteligent than man was in biblical times, in fact are are probably less inteligent due to years of the genetic mutations effecting our DNA.

What part of the old testiment states that dinosaurs had a naval or genitalia?I'de appreciate it if you could point that part out to me, scripture?

[quote name='lionheart209' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:57 AM']Man is fallible and can accept anything and everything that his fallible mind wants to accept.
But the word of God is infallible and has literal statements of what happened as far as origin of life, for a theistic evolutionists to inject ideas of evolution into Gods word that states otherwise happened is rediculous.[/quote]

How can a fallible man create an infallible translation?

[quote]Until evidence does surface on those things, leave it called what it will ultimately remain, imagined speculation.[/quote]

Such as a global flood, a 6,000 year old earth, the special creation of man . . . need I go on?

[quote]How has life changed over time?Ã‚Â Give me some impiracle evidence of this?[/quote]

Sure. The transition of reptile to mammal is one of the better evidenced transitions in the fossil record. The most dramatic change was seen in the middle ear. Two fo the jaw bones found in the reptillian jaw moved up into the middle ear creating the irreducibly complex middle ear system found in all mammals. The reptillian jaw/ear is on the bottom and the mammalian jaw/ear is on the top. The fossils are arranged by the strata they are found in.

[quote]What part of the old testiment states that dinosaurs had a naval or genitalia?
I'de appreciate it if you could point that part out to me, scripture?
ThanX

Many claim that the "behemoth" spoken about in Job is in fact a dinosaur. The only problem is that the creature described has a navel, external testicles, and an external ding-a-ling. Dinosaurs had none of these. The behemoth sounds a lot more like a mammal, probably a hippo.

Job 40:15-20 KJV (emphasis mine)

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Tail=ding-a-ling, euphamistically
Stones=testicles, euphamistically

The site software wouldn't let me use the scientific term for the working end of the male anatomy so I used ding-a-ling instead.